Survivors rush gens? Rush the hook.

in no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast.

This is what I mean about you continually going to strawman arguments.

Here's what I actually said

"The issue was always tunneling being a possibility, except the 3v1 being made stronger if it happened, in return for unique hook benefits that made the 4v1 easier for the killer"

You just made up a different argument that was easier for you to respond to. Yes, eliminating a survivor will always be strong. The goal was to make it so that it was not so overwhelmingly strong that all other killer tactics were relatively foolish in comparison and that the game was not so completely one sided if a tunnel did occur.

And as i have already said, its simple math. 

Not even close. You might as well argue because the killer moves faster they will never lose. You're just stripping away every variable or element from the discussion.

Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill.

I see we're straying into a new argument here - the whole 'don't punish killers for doing their jobs' nonsense.

Okay, remove things like the teaming up on gen penalty. In fact, let survivors just do the same gen repeatedly. Why are we punishing survivors for doing their job?

That would be stupid. The survivors and killers both have an objective and creating pros and cons to differing strategies is very normal game design.

It does show though that, despite your earlier claims, a good example of how some killers were never even willing to consider compromise on this. At least most of them though were more upfront about not wanting it all and not doing this whole 'survivors won't compromise'.

The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast.

As you like to say, this proves my point.

It's bad game design for both the survivors and killer if a 4v1 game is so heavily decided by a single one of the players, especially when those decisions are so heavily impacted by chance on who the killer runs into first and what perks the survivor brought into the match.

It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth.

Again, proves the point of the what the anti-tunnel was setting out to do and goes back on your own argument (we've gone from simple math to plenty of viable strategies).

Getting a survivor out of the game is the best thing that can happen to the killer. You have to start adding on conditions and circumstances to make it less viable. Which is what the anti-tunnel did.